IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM ITA No. 631/JP/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05. Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat cuke Income Tax Officer, C/o Raj Kumar Jain, Advocate, Vs. Bundi. st 217, 1 floor, Gopal Singh Plaza, Bundi. PAN No. AWZPS 1416 R Appellant Respondent ITA No. 541/JP/2012 Assessment Year : 2005-06. Asstt. Commissioner of cuke Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota. Vs.C/o Raj Kumar Jain, Advocate, 217, 1st floor, gopal Singh Plaza, Bundi. PAN No. AWZPS 1416 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ Date of Hearing : 29.09.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2016. ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. These two appeals one by assessee pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 and another by revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06 are directed against two separate order of ld. CIT (A), Kota dated 30.03.2012 and 23.03.2012. Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, they are being decided by this consolidated order, for sake of convenience. 2 ITA No. 631 & 541/JP/2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat. 2. We first take up assessee s appeal in ITA No. 631/JP/2012. appeal is barred by limitation by 7 days. 3. No one appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application is received on date of hearing though notice under registered post was sent to assessee at assessee s address. Therefore, it appears that assessee is not interested to pursue his case. In these circumstances, following decision of Delhi bench of ITAT in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and also on judgment of Hon ble M.P. High Court in case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP), appeal of assessee is not admitted and is hereby dismissed in limine. 4. Now we take up revenue s appeal in ITA No. 541/JP/2012. revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- On facts and in circumstances of case, ld. CIT (A) has erred in :- (i) Deleting addition of Rs. 34,73,644/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans, when assessee failed to prove genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of creditors and relying upon his own order in assessee s case in A.Y. 2004-05 even though referred to order has not attained any finality. (ii) appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground and to modify/amend ground of appeal at time of hearing. 5. Briefly stated facts of case are that case of assessee was reopened for assessment and assessment under section 147/143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was framed vide order dated 27.12.2010. While framing assessment, AO observed that assessee had made repayment of loan to M/s. Jalkanta Management Services Pvt. 3 ITA No. 631 & 541/JP/2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat. Ltd. of Rs. 85 lacs, assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 20,39,443/- and Rs. 14,34,201/- during year under consideration from M/s. Vijendra Singh Hada & Party and M/s. Bhimsen Hada & Party respectively, assessee made investment of Rs. 18.00 lacs in M/s. AOP, Baran and Rs. 15.00 lacs in M/s. Jalkanta Director, assessee also made investment of Rs. 2.50 lacs in shop. Thus, AO made assessment by making addition of Rs. 34,73,644/- as unexplained unsecured loans. Aggrieved by this order, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering submissions of assessee partly allowed appeal. While partly allowing appeal, ld. CIT (A) deleted addition. 6. Now revenue is in appeal before us. 7. ld. D/R vehemently argued that ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting addition. He supported order of AO. 8. We have heard ld. D/R. No one appeared on behalf of assessee. We have perused material available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. We find that ld. CIT (A) has given finding of fact in para 4.12 of his order as under :- Ground No. 1, 4 & 5 Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 34,73,644/- on ground that credits of Rs. 20,39,443/- received from Vijender Singh Dada & Party and Rs. 14,34,201/- received from M/s. Bhim Singh Chundawat & Party were not explained. In assessment year 2004-05 I have confirmed addition of Rs. 85 lakhs on protective basis & Rs. 65.00 lakhs on substantive basis. cash credits in current year flowed from above amounts added in A.Y. 2004-05, as under :- 1. assessee invested Rs. 85 lakhs in AOP M/s. Vijendra Singh & Party. 4 ITA No. 631 & 541/JP/2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat. 2. M/s. Vijendra Singh & Party refunded Rs. 85 lakhs + Rs. 20,39,443/- to assessee during F.Y. 2004-05, out of this assessee deposited Rs. 85,00,000/- with AOP, Bhim Singh Chundawat & Company. 3. M/s. Bhim Singh Chundawat & Company paid Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Sh. Gajendra Porwal (A/c Jalkanta Management Services Pvt. Ltd.) Thus money represent nothing but Rs. 1,50,00,000/- lakhs added in hands of assessee in A.Y. 2004-05 and represents its subsequent flow. Assessing Officer is therefore directed to delete addition of Rs. 34,73,644/-. These grounds of appeal are allowed. above finding of facts are not controverted by revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we uphold finding of fact as reported by ld. CIT (A). Hence we do not see any reason to interfere in order of ld. CIT (A), same is hereby upheld. Therefore, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 9. In result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in open court on 14/10/2016. Sd/- Sd/- ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 14/10/2016. Das/ Copy of order forwarded to: s 1. Appellant- Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat, Bundi. 2. Respondent ITO, Bundi/ACIT, Circle-1, Kota. 3. CIT(A). 4. CIT, By order, 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 631 & 541/JP/2012) Assistant. Registrar 5 ITA No. 631 & 541/JP/2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat. Kuldeep Singh Shaktawat v. Income Tax Officer, Bundi